There are times when I hear of a film that, having played at a few test screenings, or possibly film festivals, gets shelved because the reaction wasn’t up to the standards the filmmakers had set for themselves. Other times, the film is so wretchedly awful that the chance of it ever seeing the light of day seems as dim as the dark room the celluloid was developed in. There are even times when a film was unable to pick up distribution upon completion, for a whole myriad of reasons.

Today’s film falls into the later category.

Upon hearing of the film some time ago, I’d wrongfully assumed it to be a remake of Trick or Treat (1986) or Trick or Treats (1982). When I learned about the production of the film, and its lack of distribution, I wrote it off as another horribly contructed film. However, I soon began to hear rumblings of how enjoyable the film was, and noticed it being mentioned in other film blogs and articles.

For reasons that defy understanding, I forgot about the film as its DVD release came and went, only briefly becoming aware of it again periodically, usually around this time of year.

Recently, I began recieving notices that Legendary Pictures was going to be screening the film on Youtube via Facebook, with a live Q+A to follow. My ears perked up, I cleared my schedule, and decided to add my review to this series on 31 frightful films. When I learned of it taking place on Halloween, I knew it would be the final entry in the series.

An anthology of four stories, connected by their occurance on the same city block on Halloween: A neighborly high school principal harbors a dark secret, a college virgin seeks to find the man to share herself with, a group of youth take a trip to the site of a deadly accident, and a curmudgeon old man gets more tricks than treats.

Right from the start, I knew I was going to enjoy this film. Dougherty pays a somewhat homage to one of my favorite films that take place on Halloween, by utilizing a POV shot of a killer in a mask (Halloween). The suspense alone in the opening scene is so well directed, and edited, that I was on the edge of my seat before the opening titles had even begun. When they did, they also were cleverly executed, standing out from the current glut of horror films for its homage to another classic horror anthology (Creepshow).

The script, stripped from the visual tropes of a cat jumping across the path of an unsuspecting victim from the trash cans just off screen, and absent of the musical cues meant to invoke a gutteral reaction of fright, still manages to hold its suspense, delivering twists and turns in the vein of a classic Tales From the Crypt tome. The stories are tightly interwoven, creating a cohesive overarching plot to an otherwise unrelated group of shorts, sans the Holiday in which they occur. Very well done.

As for the aforementioned visuals, the cinematography from Glen MacPherson (Rambo, The Final Destination, Exit Wounds) is dark and atmospheric, perfectly framed to maximize the effects of the most haunted of holidays. The costuming is original, creating an iconic character (that which is on the poster) sure to join the ranks of a Freddy Krueger, Pinhead, Leatherface, and Chucky.

While the gore is a bit over-the-top, it is far from gore porn. It strangely didn’t feel gratuitous, blending in well with the comical undertones the film delivered, much in the same way Sam Raimi did years ago with his Evil Dead trilogy.

The acting also was exceptional, which wasn’t surprising given the calibre of talent Dougherty brough into the fold. The cast easily handled what could have been camp, were the roles in the hands of less experienced talent.

The most enjoyable aspect, for me, was the fact that it takes place on Halloween. Most horror films which many would associate with the frightfully festive day have nothing to do with the actual day itself. Here, Dougherty, who also serves as screenwriter (Urban Legends: Bloody Mary, X2, Superman Returns), focuses on the traditions of the holiday, as well as the mythologies often associated with same. Thankfully, he crafted a wonderfully entertaining addition. An addition that deserves to be, and will be, viewed again and again, for many years to come.

I consider the original Halloween by John Carpenter to be one of the best horror films ever made. Many detractors may deride the film for its violence, its wanton use of gore, or its hokey style of killings. I’d challenge those persons to review the film, and notice that none of those things actually apply to the film that many would argue started the slasher film genre, if not certainly the holiday themed horror film.

I had seen the original for the first time on a brisk Halloween night on my family’s living room television. My family were subscribers to ONTV, and we would often gather round to watch films such as Star Wars and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

It was on one such night where my father popped his famous bag of popcorn, buttered salt added, pulled up my little wooden white rocking chair, and allowed me to view what would spawn numerous sequels and remakes for years to come.

Having not seen the sequel for many years, I decided to revisit it for the penultimate entry in this year’s series.

After a horrible night of being attacked and seeing her friends killed my masked killer Michael Myers, Laurie Strode is taken to a hospital to recover from her wounds. Unfortunately, the crazed killer is still on the loose, and tracks her down, in order to finish the job.

Less superior to the original in many ways. For starters, Rosenthal attempts to have Michael mimic the mannerisms he displays in the first film, but done with much less style and/or creepiness.

Second, the motivations of Michael this time around are much less understandable. In the first film, he is after Laurie, and everyone associated with her. Here, he kills randomly, for killing sake. He begins by going to a neighborhood house, and killing the husband and wife for no apparent reason.

The violence has been punched up, and has become more “shock value” than suspenseful, more of what many viewers would associate with the slasher genre and the effects work of horror guru’s like Tom Savini. Now we get a syringe in the eye, a boiled face, and two bullets into the eyes. Also, the actions in this film rely solely on the stupidity of the characters.
Perhaps the most puzzling aspect of the film is the choice to house it entirely within a hospital. Hospitals are normally quite busy, well lit, and well staffed. In order to make it fit the mold of a horror film, however, they strangely make the hospital staffed by only a couple people, very dimly lit, if lit at all, and nary a patient in site, with the exception of poor, can-barely-walk, always in a daze Laurie Strode.

When coupled with the first film, it is enjoyable to view. I also found enjoyable what obviously was intended to be the finale for what became a long running franchise. Even if it were a bit of a different feel than its predecessor.

I dislike cats. I’m aware that many filmmakers have the same lack of appreciation for the beasts with 9 lives. Cat’s Eye, Pet Sematary, The Black Cat, The Cat People, even A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 all feature these ferocious felines.

It was with much trepidation (not really) that I sat to watch today’s film. I knew that I would likely have an experience of shock simply from the subject matter alone. I braved my fears, however, and happily accessed my Hulu+ account to view this classic of Japanese horror.

31 Days of Films and Frights – Day 29: Yabu No Naka No Kuroneko “Kuroneko”

After being brutally raped and murdered by a gang of wandering samurai, a woman and her daughter return from the grave to haunt and kill them.

What odd choices of filmmaking, such as random jump cuts, unmotivated images of a black cat, disjointed jumping of the plane, cuts of ghosts and fallen samurai bodies out of nowhere, and the continual bamboo forest immersed in a dense fog imagery.

Some of the visuals were haunting, however. The women with their painted on eyebrows, floating in their white kimono, amidst the secluded cabin in the woods, certainly ought to be enough to hold the interest of many aficionado’s of horror. Sadly, I found the aforementioned problems too problematic to be saved by the later interesting elements.

It simply didn’t rise above anything other than average. Certainly not after watching the superior Onibaba. Thankfully, however, it’s not as bewildering as House.

I’ve long been a fan of Japanese cinema. Akira Kurosawa, Kenji Mizoguchi, Kon Ichikawa, and my favorite, Yasujiro Ozu, are masters of cinema few western audiences have seen. Amazingly, other than the run of horror movies that came from the land of the rising sun a few years back, such as Ringu and Ju On, I wasn’t familiar with any other in that genre.

Thankfully, a recent trip to the video store, and my viewing of their Criterion collection they have near the back of the store, I came across a few films considered to be classics in the J-horror genre.

With this new knowledge, I followed up my visit by searching both Hulu and Netflix for other films originating from the land famous for samurai, geisha, and ninja.

Happily, today’s film was one of the films featured on Hulu+ Criterion Collection. Without hesitation, I pressed play on my tiny appleTV remote, and took in the surprise that was today’s entry.

I wasn’t sure how this film was considered a horror film for most of the film. I felt more like a revenge picture, and an excellently crafted one at that. However, [SPOILER]…

I was completely blown away by the twist near the end of the film that confirmed this to indeed be a horror film. The mastery that Shindou displayed on bringing together this morality tale was superb, and worthy of all the praise I’ve since read up on for this film.

It was shocking to see such graphic sensuality, given the year the film was made. Certainly not a film I’d be able to show in my film appreciation class without a major disclaimer.

The cinematography is simply amazing. The waves in the grass, the use of shadows, and the framing of each scene is a marvel to see. The acting is equally as impressive. This is not your over-the-top theatrics found in many other films of that same era. Instead we are witness to the depravity of war, and the loneliness of seclusion, in a manner that is completely engrossing.

I will never feel the same way when I am faced with the choice of the shortcut through the grassy field or the long dirt path around it. I certainly will be needing a proper foot cleansing after such a proposition presents itself.

For years, horror fans were clamoring for two of the most iconic stars of slasher films to appear in a film together.

Since Leatherface and Chucky weren’t available, Robocop and The Terminator weren’t an option, and Aliens vs Predator would never work, filmmakers opted for the two whose monikers grace the title of todays entry.

The only problem the filmmakers would have, would be how to tie the two franchises together in a way that would satiate the desires of fans of either blade wielding terror.

Freddy Krueger, in an attempt to terrorize people whom have stopped believeing in him, seeks the aid of fellow serial killer Jason Voorhees (of Friday the 13th fame) to assist in his never ending assault on the teens of his world.

The opening sequence was well done. Freddy’s monologue, the gutteral sounds he emates as he speaks, and the montage of kills from the previous films in the series all are done in a way to evoke fear and horror once again, bringing a much needed element back into the franchise from the start.

I’m sure the name of the boyfriend (Michael) of the first victim, and the owner of the house on Elm St. (Laurie) was intentional, in a nod to the other classic slasher that fans would have welcomed. Even the inclusion of Jason’s mother, and his reanimation is cleverly done, leading into one of the most interesting opening credit sequences out of both killers solo efforts.

The dialogue, however, is where the film derails, and dives down into mediocrity. The kills that defy science, no matter the strength of Jason and/or Freddy, also play more comical than scary.

Other than Jason Ritter, the acting is pretty bad. In fact, i thought the silicon in EVERY actress had more character than the “hosts”.

All in all, fans of either franchise will enjoy it, if they can get past the fact that the entire film makes no sense if the previous entries in either franchise are cannon.

I will never be able to sing this nursery rhyme the way it was written thanks to the Nightmare on Elm Street series. In fact, I cannot recall any of the verses beyond Three and Four. However, I can recite verbatim the haunted variation of the rhyme from the mind of Wes Craven.

I only wish that when I once spoke with Craven, I had asked him about the history of his version. Perhaps I will forever count it as one of the regrets in life I will take to the grave…

31 Days of Films and Frights – Day 26: Wes Craven’s New Nightmare

Director: Wes CravenYear: 1994Cast: Heather Langenkamp, Wes Craven, Robert EnglundLanguage: EnglishCountry: USASpecs: 112 mins. / Color / OAR 1.85:1 / MPAA Rating: RRating: ★★★★/ B
Heather Langenkamp, star of the original Nightmare on Elm Street film, finds she has a stalker who resembles Freddy Krueger, the fictional villain in the same set of films. After events in her life turn deadly, she realizes that the stalker is a demon in the persona of her fictional nemesis.

This entry starts out to be a very intelligent and clever take on the Elm Street series. It mostly presents plenty of scary moments, portraying Freddy once again as evil.

However, the last part of the film dips again into the absurd, with Freddy becoming somewhat of a clown. He stretches, grows, uses a super long tongue to strangle, etc.

Special effects are done well, and minor use of CG is blended in nicely. The makeup and glove are redone this time around, and are welcome additions.

Low on gore also, compared to the others in the series, that is. A clever twist from Craven, rejuvenating a tired series, bringing what would have been closure to the series on a high note.

Occasionally a film comes along that is well received, that a sequel in instantly ordered, in order to capitalize on the momentum of the original. Other times, a film is so original that it spawns remakes. Sometimes, the remake is produced in an entirely different country and language (see Japan’s recent remakes of Sideways (Saidoweizu) and Ghost (Ghost: Mouichido Dakishimetai), for example).

Often times, a sequel or remake will match, or in some cases surpass, the excitement found in the original (see Aliens, Spiderman 2, or Godfather 2 for more examples).

Other times, you have today’s film.

In 2007, spanish directors Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza gave us [REC], a brilliantly crafted found footage film. It quickly was followed by an American remake in 2008 titled Quarantine, from John Erick Dowdle, and a direct sequel from Balagueró in 2009 titled [REC]2.

The US remake closely followed the original in story, style, and direction. It was as equally frightening and enjoyable as the original, much in the same way Let Me In (2010) was to Let the Right One In (2008).

A deadly virus infects the members of an airliner, causing a quarantine to be placed on the jumbo jet and its inhabitants. The infected must work together in an attempt to overcome the virus, and escape safe and sound.

B-level acting, absurd character actions (the sneezing scene alone is worthy of a Razzie), and horrible camera work are only the beginning that I found wrong with this film. The most bewildering aspect of the film was Pogue’s lack of style. Jump cuts, extremely close and crazy close-ups, simply amateurish staging, and consistent shaky-cam are all inconsistent enough to bother even the most die-hard fan of those music video hold-overs.

If the script were any better, I may attempt to overlook those aforementioned problematic elements. Instead, it simply adds to the unfortunate air of a student film that this production delivers. For instance, why during a power outage does the plane also lose its power? How is it possible for a lockdown of that magnitude to be instituted that quickly? How did the airport possibly know that the airplane was infected? Why was this film completely unrelated to the first film? Why did they not follow the storyline of the sequel to [REC]?

If you want to see how NOT to make a sequel, then by all means give this a rental. Otherwise, get the superior spanish language [REC]2 instead. You won’t regret it.